The Tom Cotton letter usefully highlights Leftist stupidity

I side with the people who think that Tom Cotton and the 46 senators who joined with him in an open letter to apprise the Iranians about the way our Constitutional system works did the world a great service. As I’ll discuss at greater length below, the letter is a simple, beautifully written exposition about the American Constitution and its effects. In addition, it’s a wonderful honey pot for calling stupid Progressives out of their dark caves and exposing their ignorance to bright sunlight.

The Cotton letter is really nothing more than an elegant primer about the balance of powers and the way in which Congress, which more closely represents the American people than does the president, gets to have a say in foreign policy. For those of you who haven’t yet read the letter, or for those who would enjoy re-reading it, here’s the text:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

There are a few things you need to notice about the letter to appreciate just how terribly Leftists are beclowning themselves. First, its tone is extremely respectful. It says nothing derogatory about anyone. Second, its content makes no reference whatsoever to the terms of Obama’s negotiations with the Mullahs. The only thing it does is offer information readily available to anyone who bothers to read the United States Constitution. (Reading the Constitution, of course, is as easy as plugging the words “United States Constitution” into Bing.)

This lucid, respectfully-stated summation of publicly available information has started a hysterical firestorm on the Left. The first cries were directed to all 47 Senators — Traitors! Logan Act violators! Both these insults were the products of stupid minds.

With regard to the treason claim, the letter certainly didn’t give aid and comfort to an enemy, which is the definition of treason. We’re not at war with Iran and the Mullahs do not appear to have received either aid or comfort ftom learning that Obama was over-promising. Indeed, they seemed angered and disappointed, which is how we like it when we’re dealing with people who, even though we’re not at war with them, have been at war with us since 1979.

The hysterics do not fare any better with the Logan Act claim. The Logan Act forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. An example of the type of conduct contemplated under the Logan Act occurs when a member of the armed forces travels to a foreign capital to engage in peace talks with an enemy that is facing off against our troops in a hot war on the battlefield. That’s a Logan Act violation.

The Logan Act, however, does not apply to United States Senators who send an open letter summarizing the Constitutional balance of powers. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Senators from visiting with, talking to, or trading information with foreign powers. Senators do it all the time, whether to gather useful information or to make nice with dictators. As long as they’re not entering into negotiations for international agreements, it’s all good — and if the Senator in question who does that is a Democrat, it’s still all good.

The Leftists seem to have figured out that, despite getting almost 300,000 signatures on their petition seeking Logan Act charges against the Republican Senators, that petition isn’t going anywhere — except that it will force the White House, when it responds to the petition, to concede that the Republican Senators had the perfect right to act as they did.

Balked in their quest for a collective spill of Republican blood, the Lefties have a new tactic. They’re now pointing to members of the armed forces and accusing them of having violated the military code.

Ground central for loony Leftist lies is the Daily Kos, which is suddenly extremely solicitous about the whole military code of conduct. (Keep in mind these are the same people who still think John Kerry is a hero for having thrown someone else’s military medals over the White House fence and who include in their Big Tent the whole cohort of screamers who spent the entire Iraq war calling our troops “baby killers.”)

The Daily Kos’s particular target is Jodi Ernst. I really can’t do justice to its fulminations, so let me quote. (Since I don’t feel like honoring the Daily Kos with a hyperlink, here’s a non-hyperlinked URL if you want to see the original: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/12/1370336/-Lt-Col-Joni-Ernst-should-be-court-martialed-for-signing-the-seditious-letter-to-Iran.)

It is a privilege to serve in the US military. With that privilege comes obligations. Following military law is one of them. When Lt. Col. Joni Ernst signed the seditious letter to Iran, she broke a serious law.

29B.85 CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS.
Any person subject to this code who uses contemptuous words against the president, the governor, or the governor of any other state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which that person may be serving, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

This is very serious infraction. We are a nation governed by civilians. Our Commander-in-Chief is a civilian. The government officials that hold ultimate authority over our military are civilians. This is true at the federal level and the state level. This has always been the case since George Washington was president. He resigned his military commission to accept the position of president. We have never in our history had a military ruler. Military obedience to civilian authority is critical and essential if we are to maintain the democracy we inherited. That is why “contempt towards officials” is such a serious matter. Lincoln enforced that discipline during the Civil War. Even with the imposition of martial law, Lincoln remained a civilian commander. Truman enforced the same discipline after WWII when he relieved Gen. MacArthur of his command. Obama enforced the same discipline recently when Gen. McChrystal was relieved of his command. There is nothing anachronistic about this fundamental principle.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

The first reference notes with complete factual accuracy, and no disrespect, when Obama’s term of office expires. The second reference notes with complete factual accuracy, and no disrespect, that without three-fifths of Congress approving any agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei, there is no treaty, there is only an executive agreement.

Now, if the Cotton letter had gone on to add that President Obama, despite his status as a constitutional law teacher, is an ignoramus when it comes to the Constitution; or that Obama is obviously engaged in a serious fraud against Iran and others in the world to the extent they rely on him to deliver a treaty; or that Obama seems to have abandoned the limitations of the U.S. Constitution in favor of the power of a tyrant — well, any one of those statements might be deemed “contemptuous.”

That, of course, is not what our reservist Senators did. Indeed, one could argue that reciting manifest facts about the Constitution’s language is the most respectful act a military person can perform. It’s heartening to know that the men and women who put themselves in the front line know what they’re fight for — and it’s not the United Nations, which Obama is now trying to bring into the loop in order to bypass Congress.

I turned to retired Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton for perspective. He wouldn’t say Cotton and Co. were “traitors,” either. He had a better word.

“I would use the word mutinous,” said Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said.

Somewhere along the line, Major Gen. Eaton (clearly the very model of a modern major general who sounds erudite but actually knows nothing), has lost sight of the fact that Cotton is not an active duty military man but is, instead, an active duty American Senator. Cotton’s obligations lie with the American people, not with the President — especially when the President is not acting in his role as commander-in-chief but is, instead, acting in his role as sell-out and appeaser-in-chief.

Incidentally, if it wasn’t immediately obvious from Eaton’s remarkably uninformed remarks, he’s also a hard core Lefty. Considering that Eaton is not only a moron, but also a sufficiently adept political animal to have held a high position during Operation Iraqi Freedom’s lowest ebb , before General Petraeus turned it around, I can only say that I, for one, am profoundly grateful that Eaton retired and is now reduced to making little clucking noises on Leftist media rather than having direct responsibility for American troops. As a civilian, he’s just one of a herd of similarly-situated Leftist lickspittles. Were he still in the military, he could do real damage.

From foreign or domestic enemies. Then again, Benedict Arnold thought he was defending the 13 Colonies when he sold out for a bag of silver, surprisingly enough.

J K Brown

I mentioned before the youtube of ‘Magna Carta Presentation by Professor John Robson’. During his very interesting history lesson the professor made a couple salient points. He was speaking to an Ottawa Libertarian group where he pointed that historically they were on the right side of history but only we were in odd times. Not unlike the Tea Party fundamental values here in the US.

The other is throughout the story from Magna Carta to the present time, The “moments” come about due to the king (executive) overreaching to undermine the individual rights but also to overtake Parliament. Magna Carta was signed to bring the king to heel, The English bill of Rights, the same. Our own Revolution was a reaction to the Parliament being undermined by various offices and officials put in place by King George. We won our freedom not least because the people in Britain and the Parliament realized we were fighting for the rights from time immemorial. The Brits themselves pushed back against the king’s infringements in the wake of our separation. Fortunately, our forefathers established a purer notion of the individual rights with even more hard constraints on the executive (and government) than in Britain as we see today in that place where “Britain was”.

Robson opens with the story of Alfred and the Cakes, which set the precedent of the King being accountable to the people. Even if just because he let the cakes burn while being given shelter and warming by the fire.

So here we are after the long cold war with the power of the President idea but now with the executive infringing even more with the active aid of Democrats in Congress. But all is not lost, some in Congress are not ready to go quietly into the night. The battle may yet be fought to restore representative government. Of course, not only must the Office of the President be returned to its administrative function, but also the Congress must take back their authority they’ve frittered away on the various agencies, departments and tyrannical legislation run by unelected, and increasingly unaccountable bureaucrats.

As we see with the Cotton letter, Establishment Washington is quite startled by the fact some in Congress might view the Legislative might exercise its power. We also see it in the poly sci classes where the profs are scandalized that America might have separate branches rather than a parliamentary system. So much the better to do mischief to the People than having a head of government that doesn’t control the legislature.

Is there a growing faction in Congress that see the Legislative as the branch that represents the People?

Wolf Howling

One of my favorite lines from the Revolution came from Edmund Burke, addressing Parliament in 1775 in an effort to forestall war to subjegate the colonists: “An Englishman is the unfittest person on earth to argue another Englishman into slavery.”

ymarsakar

Hit em where it hurts, Book. That’s the only language they can understand.

J K Brown

Replying to a commenter over at OTB who brought up the accusations of tossed at those who opposed Bush’s policies, I had the thought below:

Well, given the professed love of all things Big Government by those protesting Bush’s policies, foreign and otherwise, it was near-mutiny. If one does not accept subjugation to government rule vice the rule of law, then one can hardly be mutinous.

(sidebar: the promiscuous use of treason in political spats is a good indication of why treason was defined in the Constitution, thus placed beyond the whims of government and politicians)

Wolf Howling

Yes, but . . . think about the irony here. This is, without doubt, the first time in history that a charge of treason has been leveled for quoting the Constitution. We have hit a new . . . not sure if its landmark or low-water mark, in this country.

ymarsakar

The Republicans were initially correct about the Democrat’s treason. The proof, as usual, was covered up, eradicated, and Republicans were forced to submit apologies due to the blackmail held over them by the Left.

Then again, Democrat generals utilizing politics for war strategy, isn’t such a new thing.

one4All

PLEASE SIGN and SHARE the Petition at http://wh.gov/iD6Ec to: File charges against Senator Cotton and the signers of the Letter to Iran under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason – In addition to Violating the Logan Act,18 U.S. Code § 953 Private correspondence with foreign governments; “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United STATES, levies war against them or ADHERES to their ENEMIES, giving them AID and comfort within the United States or ELSEWHERE , is guilty of treason..”

The Iranian Assembly of Experts, the clerical equivalent of the “Senate,” and the Revolutionary Guard are the Sworn Enemies of the United States and are opposed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This letter ADHERES to their position and AIDS our Enemies in Iran continue to prepare for Nuclear War.

ymarsakar

See what happens Book, when you let Leftist maggots infiltrate through a healthy community? They got their NSA/Google spybot links posted already here, crawling through your messages.

You, and you, and you over there with the Hammer Martel, are all on their list.

These sound like humans, but they are not humans. They are autonomous sentry drones designed with military hunter seeker kill programs, that is all. Squashing them should have about the same life consequence and moral weight as crushing an ant.

Charles Martel

My God, one4All’s scribble is cretinous, even by the left’s low. low standards. How the hell is a public congressional letter “private correspondence?”

I wish the left would send us some higher-IQ trolls. What it’s sending us now is damned near insulting.

ymarsakar

The Occupy Rape streeters have to do something for their drugs and meth. The Leftist alliance is paying good dough for sexual slaves on porn and various other services, sources inform me. The rape a thon directors give them their orders and they Obey those Orders. That is all they are worth.

I too urge everyone who actually believes the content of that petition to sign it. That way, when we take back the White House, we’ll finally have a list of all of the Americans who can usefully be defined as “too dumb to live.” We’ll call it the “Darwin Natural Selection List.”

I foresee a day when we create a program offering everyone on that list a free ticket to Antarctica where, those same list signers have repeatedly assured us, there won’t be any cold weather or polar bears to bother them.

It applies to negotiations thusly: If you offer 40 and I ask 60, we may
eventually settle somewhere around 50. BUT if you start out at 10, while I still open at 60, you’ll drag the result down towards 35. If you make that mistake, you do anything needed to move the Overton Window back.

IF Obama was negotiating in good faith, however ineptly, he’d
seize upon the Cotton letter to rescue him. “See what I have to deal with?” he’d tell the Iranians. “You have to help me here on centrifuges and inspections…”

The fact that he is defensive is proof he is negotiating in
utter bad faith for the US.

And yes, ymarsakar, we (here) all know Obama does not love
America.

But the left embraces the Overton Window and I love throwing
this point in their faces.

ymarsakar

Throw as many things as you want at them. Just make an impression, preferably a painful, permanent one with pregnant pauses.

RobertArvanitis

PS: Went to the original site where one4ALL originally appeared and educated him about the Overton Window.

Since when can’t a citizen of the United States of America publish an open letter to anyone, anywhere in the world?

The letter was remarkably free of criticism of Obama. And I wouldn’t care if the letter were nothing BUT vicious criticism of Obama, even the most scurrilous sort. But the fact is, it isn’t. You *could* make the point that in describing US Constitutional law that any 6th grader should understand, that the letter is being insulting, but that’s just an opinion concerning the content, not the content itself.

The fact that leftists want to punish free speech is very telling. We’ve come a loooong way from the 60’s. The leftists are pure fascist now. Suppress dissent! All shall bow to The Glorious Leader! Or suffer the consequences.

phillyfanatic

When dealing with the Quisling in the WH, any warning by any person is needed to open the eyes and ears of the Moral Idiots who put that thug in the WH and the US is facing the greatest danger we have faced since the Nazis and Communists: Islamofascism. Thank God for Cotton and anyone who realizes we have an Alger Hiss in the entire Dem Party who will not protect the US or our allies ala Israel.

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: